| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): This is a grave evening and I do not believe that any Member of the House views the events of this evening lightly. Does my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister agree that given the systematic breaking of virtually every commitment and agreement that President Milosevic has previously given, for the international community to do nothing at this stage would be a position wholly lacking in credibility? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that when we are dealing with an evil aggressor, just as in 1939, there comes a point when talking as a means of resolving a conflict is no longer a viable option, and that the decision on when that moment comes is a matter for acute judgment? I believe that the judgment that has been made this evening will be supported by the vast majority of Members and by the vast majority of people in the country.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I believe, like my hon. Friend, that our action is supported overwhelmingly by Members of the House, as we have seen this evening, and by the general public. I believe also that the actions that have been taken by President Milosevic are ones that appal the world, that need to be condemned and that are entirely unacceptable. I further believe that the judgment that we have had to exercise will be shown to be correct. I hope that it will lead to a better situation. At least it offers the people of Kosovo hope of escape from the repression that they now face. That is the least that we can do, that is what we have embarked upon, and I think that it is right to do so.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall be returning to these matters tomorrow.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Madam Speaker:
We move on to motion 14.
Mr. David Hanson (Delyn):
Not moved. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. I have business to do. Will hon. Members sit down? A little courtesy here would do very well.
That the draft Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
24 Mar 1999 : Column 496
That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
That the draft New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiatives) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.
That the draft International Mobile Satellite Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.
That the draft Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Application to Summary Proceedings) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
That the draft Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.--[Mr. Hanson.]
Question agreed to.
Royal Hospital Haslar
9.53 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): Earlier today, a delegation from Hampshire took to 10 Downing street a petition with 50,000 signatures. This evening, it is my privilege to produce to the House a parliamentary petition that similarly has 50,000 signatures. Both of those petitions are related to the retention of our only military hospital, which is the Royal hospital Haslar, which is in my constituency. All the people who have signed the petitions care deeply about the retention of our only tri-service centre of medical excellence. My constituents are profoundly concerned about the prospective loss of their local hospital.
The parliamentary petition is a most unusual one. It is, I think, in exemplary form, and I think that the House will appreciate it.
Madam Speaker:
It looks very pretty.
Mr. Viggers:
Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is an attempt by my constituents and others to put in graphic form their deep concern about the present issue. I shall read the words of the petition, which speak for themselves.
The petition states:
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Hanson.]
Mr. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin):
It is hard, on an evening such as this, to turn one's mind away from the events in Kosovo. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the opportunity to expose in this House two lawful but, in my view, improper, scams--I can think of no better word to describe them--which last year plunged 78 of the 100 health authorities in England into a deficit on their drugs budget. Five of those health authorities--East Kent, Leicestershire, Manchester, South Cheshire and Suffolk--were in deficit by over £2 million, and no fewer than 34 were in deficit by over £1 million, including Shropshire health authority, which serves my constituency.
Last year, the total overspend on drugs in the national health service was no less than £69 million. That sum would have helped the NHS to recruit an additional 4,000 nurses or abolish dental charges throughout England. That sum is in excess of that required for the construction of the new hospital in Barnet.
All hon. Members are aware of the strains on the NHS drugs budget. The technological, scientific and medical breakthroughs that many of this country's leading drug companies are pursuing and achieving puts a strain on our health service, as does increasing life expectancy. The raising, year by year, of expectations among patients and the demands that they place on their GPs and hospitals also cause strain. However, the drugs overspend to which I am drawing attention does not benefit the patient or the taxpayer. It benefits pharmaceutical companies and, sadly, some general practitioners.
It is a shocking fact that, of last year's £69 million drugs overspend, no less than £66 million could have been saved. If that money could have been saved on behalf of the NHS, why was it not? The answer is that pharmaceutical companies push branded drugs in our NHS and some general practitioners are addicted to those drugs. For companies and GPs, there is profit in dispensing branded drugs in place of generic drugs.
As I said, there are two scams. First, there should be a Government health warning that hospital-led prescribing can be habit-forming, and it certainly will be if pharmaceutical companies have their way. Their intention is to push on our hospitals discounted, branded drugs that are as loss leaders all too irresistible to many hospital consultants. When patients are discharged from hospital with prescriptions for branded drugs, they in turn place almost irresistible pressure on GPs to prescribe the same brand.
Research by the University of Keele has demonstrated that some 70 per cent. of prescriptions in primary care are influenced by prescriptions in secondary care. In 1994, when the Select Committee on Health undertook investigations into the pharmaceutical industry and
prescribing practices, Dr. Malcolm Patch, a general practitioner from Maidenhead, gave evidence to the Committee.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Hanson.]
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
24 Mar 1999 : Column 497
The Humble Petition of the Citizens of Gosport, Fareham and surrounding areas, and others throughout the United Kingdom who are concerned about the future of the Royal Hospital Haslar and Defence Medical Services.
Most unusually, the petition has been sealed by the seals of the borough of Gosport, the borough of Fareham, the borough of Havant, the city of Portsmouth and Hampshire county council, which is a symbol of the exceptional concern of the community.
Sheweth
That Royal Hospital Haslar has provided medical services for Service personnel and civilians since 1753; that it currently treats 111,000 patients a year and 27,000 Accident and Emergency cases; that since 1994 Haslar Hospital has operated as the sole tri-Service hospital and centre of excellence for the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force; that there is no possibility of alternate medical provision being made in the Gosport area before the closure of Royal Hospital Haslar which could be as early as 2002.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do resolve and instruct Her Majesty's Government to reconsider its proposals to close the Royal Hospital Haslar; and instead to use the facilities of the Royal Hospital Haslar in a new partnership with the National Health Service in order to continue medical cover of the highest order for the citizens of the Gosport area; and to maintain the Royal Hospital Haslar as a centre of excellence for Defence Medical Services.
9.55 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |